China to buy Eurofighters?

[phil hunt]

item: In October, a Chinese official report called for greater trade
with the EU, and for the EU's arms embrago against China to be
lifted.

item: German foreign minister Gerhard Schroder recently visited
China and said arms embrago should be lifted.

item: a spokesman for EADS (large European arms manufacturer, which
is one of the main partners in Eurofighter) recently called for the
embargo to end.

Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the
Eurofighter. Also on the shopping list might be ASRAAM, Meteor and
ASTER anti-aircraft missiles.

There's a more detailed discussion of this on my blog at:
<http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html>


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[David Bromage]

phil hunt wrote:
> Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the
> Eurofighter.

Naturally the EU will agree in the hope of getting exports and secure
the future of the EF. Expect an initial Chinese order for 24 units,
followed by 300+ more built locally after they reverse engineer it.

Cheers
David

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:09:10 +0000, (phil
hunt) wrote:

>item: In October, a Chinese official report called for greater trade
>with the EU, and for the EU's arms embrago against China to be
>lifted.
>
>item: German foreign minister Gerhard Schroder recently visited
>China and said arms embrago should be lifted.
>
>item: a spokesman for EADS (large European arms manufacturer, which
>is one of the main partners in Eurofighter) recently called for the
>embargo to end.
>
>Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the
>Eurofighter. Also on the shopping list might be ASRAAM, Meteor and
>ASTER anti-aircraft missiles.
>
>There's a more detailed discussion of this on my blog at:
><http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html>


In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
years.

[Adrian]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:09:10 +0000, (phil
> hunt) wrote:
>
> >item: In October, a Chinese official report called for greater trade
> >with the EU, and for the EU's arms embrago against China to be
> >lifted.
> >
> >item: German foreign minister Gerhard Schroder recently visited
> >China and said arms embrago should be lifted.
> >
> >item: a spokesman for EADS (large European arms manufacturer, which
> >is one of the main partners in Eurofighter) recently called for the
> >embargo to end.
> >
> >Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the
> >Eurofighter. Also on the shopping list might be ASRAAM, Meteor and
> >ASTER anti-aircraft missiles.
> >
> >There's a more detailed discussion of this on my blog at:
> ><http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html>
>
>
> In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
> stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
> situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
> years.

Please explain. I see no conflict coming.

Adrian Edmonds

[tscottme]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in message
...

>
>
> In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
> stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
> situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
> years.

What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps
communists is a happy coincidence.

--

Scott
--------
Monitor the latest efforts of "peaceful Muslims" at
http://www.jihadwatch.org/

[Keith Willshaw]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> Scott Ferrin > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> >
> > In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
> > stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
> > situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
> > years.
>
> What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
> US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
> unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps
> communists is a happy coincidence.
>

In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
While the French Government and some corporate bodies
have pressed for it the EU itself has stated that it has no
plans to lift the embargo and even if it did has stated that
other agreements controlling the arms trade would prevent
such deliveries taking place.



In fact the main suppliers of high tech weaponry to China
have been Israel and Russia and even the USA supplied
dual use technology supposedly for satellite launching
that is believed to have been used in the Chinese
missile program. Finally of course we miust recall that Boeing has a
large operation in China, publically states that it supports
the one China policy and Condit is president of the
US China business council.

Keith

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Adrian" > wrote:

> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message

> > In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
> > stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
> > situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
> > years.
>
> Please explain. I see no conflict coming.

China has a lot of "issues" of the type that usually leads to war in one
way or another.

They're on the edge of running out of oil, and don't have a strong
enough economy in most other respects to let them buy enough for their
near-future needs. There are, however, areas in their vicinity (Siberia
and Malaysia for example) that have oil.

They have population imbalance problems, with far too many young men
(due to their terrible laws about family size).

The Chinese government, despite the perceptions of some, is fairly
nasty, and the Taiwan situation alone could make things go very bad,
very fast.

It wouldn't take much for a single event to push China over the edge. A
major earthquake at the Three Gorges Dam after it's filled up, for
example. In one stroke, they would lose much of their future electrical
generation *and* a lot of their crops and industrial production for a
year or two.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:11:46 -0600, "tscottme" > wrote:

>Scott Ferrin > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>>
>> In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
>> stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
>> situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
>> years.
>
>What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
>US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
>unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps
>communists is a happy coincidence.

Roger that. The europeans are hardly our "friends".

Al Minyard

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:59:40 +1100, David Bromage > wrote:
>phil hunt wrote:
> > Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the
> > Eurofighter.
>
>Naturally the EU will agree in the hope of getting exports and secure
>the future of the EF. Expect an initial Chinese order for 24 units,
>followed by 300+ more built locally after they reverse engineer it.

How easy would it be for them to reverse engineer things like the
radar and other avionics?

I suspect they might have trouble with the composites in the
structure, too.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:40:56 +0200, Adrian > wrote:
>"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
>> phil hunt wrote:
>> > Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the
>> > Eurofighter.
>>
>> Naturally the EU will agree in the hope of getting exports and secure
>> the future of the EF. Expect an initial Chinese order for 24 units,
>> followed by 300+ more built locally after they reverse engineer it.
>>
>> Cheers
>> David
>>
>
>That will take them quite a while. Some of the RF elements were hard to do
>even for Western technology. The AQ requirements and testing were beyond
>what I had ever met when I worked on it.

What's AQ?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 07:04:27 GMT, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:09:10 +0000, (phil
>hunt) wrote:
>
>>item: In October, a Chinese official report called for greater trade
>>with the EU, and for the EU's arms embrago against China to be
>>lifted.
>>
>>item: German foreign minister Gerhard Schroder recently visited
>>China and said arms embrago should be lifted.
>>
>>item: a spokesman for EADS (large European arms manufacturer, which
>>is one of the main partners in Eurofighter) recently called for the
>>embargo to end.
>>
>>Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the
>>Eurofighter. Also on the shopping list might be ASRAAM, Meteor and
>>ASTER anti-aircraft missiles.
>>
>>There's a more detailed discussion of this on my blog at:
>><http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html>
>
>
>In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
>stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
>situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
>years.

You say that as if you assume hostility is obviously going to
happen. I'd like to see your reasoning for that...

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 16:27:31 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> "Adrian" > wrote:
>
>> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
>
>> > In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
>> > stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
>> > situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
>> > years.
>>
>> Please explain. I see no conflict coming.
>
>China has a lot of "issues" of the type that usually leads to war in one
>way or another.
>
>They're on the edge of running out of oil, and don't have a strong
>enough economy in most other respects to let them buy enough for their
>near-future needs. There are, however, areas in their vicinity (Siberia
>and Malaysia for example) that have oil.

And Russia is a declining power; many have speculated on an eventual
Chinese takeover of Siberia.

>The Chinese government, despite the perceptions of some, is fairly
>nasty,

Indeed, they have a far-from-perfect human rights record.

>and the Taiwan situation alone could make things go very bad,
>very fast.

That's true.

>It wouldn't take much for a single event to push China over the edge. A
>major earthquake at the Three Gorges Dam after it's filled up, for
>example. In one stroke, they would lose much of their future electrical
>generation *and* a lot of their crops and industrial production for a
>year or two.

I imagine the Chinese have thought about this.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:11:46 -0600, tscottme > wrote:
>Scott Ferrin > wrote in message
...
>
>>
>>
>> In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
>> stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
>> situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
>> years.
>
>What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
>US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
>unless a full-scale war devastates the US.

The EU will exceed the US economically next year (if it hasn't
already).

> The fact that it helps
>communists is a happy coincidence.

troll/loony alert

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:11:12 -0000, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
>While the French Government and some corporate bodies
>have pressed for it

And the German govmt.

>the EU itself has stated that it has no
>plans to lift the embargo and even if it did has stated that
>other agreements controlling the arms trade would prevent
>such deliveries taking place.

That's a relevant point.


>
>In fact the main suppliers of high tech weaponry to China
>have been Israel and Russia and even the USA supplied
>dual use technology supposedly for satellite launching
>that is believed to have been used in the Chinese
>missile program.

It seems to me that if Israel can supply China with missiles and
other technology, there should be no problems for Europe doing so,
since Israeli military tech is roughly on a level with European.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 10:43:41 -0600, Alan Minyard > wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:11:46 -0600, "tscottme" > wrote:
>
>>Scott Ferrin > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
>>> stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
>>> situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
>>> years.
>>
>>What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
>>US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
>>unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps
>>communists is a happy coincidence.
>
>Roger that. The europeans are hardly our "friends".

They certainly wouldn't be if people like you were running the USA.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Tarver Engineering]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:11:46 -0600, tscottme > wrote:
> >Scott Ferrin > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
> >> stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
> >> situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
> >> years.
> >
> >What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
> >US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
> >unless a full-scale war devastates the US.
>
> The EU will exceed the US economically next year (if it hasn't
> already).

Nope: http://www.eurolegal.org/uspoleur.shtml

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:11:12 -0000, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >
> >In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
> >While the French Government and some corporate bodies
> >have pressed for it
>
> And the German govmt.
>

Cite please.

> >the EU itself has stated that it has no
> >plans to lift the embargo and even if it did has stated that
> >other agreements controlling the arms trade would prevent
> >such deliveries taking place.
>
> That's a relevant point.
>
>
> >
> >In fact the main suppliers of high tech weaponry to China
> >have been Israel and Russia and even the USA supplied
> >dual use technology supposedly for satellite launching
> >that is believed to have been used in the Chinese
> >missile program.
>
> It seems to me that if Israel can supply China with missiles and
> other technology, there should be no problems for Europe doing so,
> since Israeli military tech is roughly on a level with European.
>

The EU views supplying arms to China as a bad idea however as
does the USA since it was US pressure that stopped the development
of an AWACS type system for China by Israeli companies.

Keith

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> The EU will exceed the US economically next year (if it hasn't
> already).

How can a shrinking economy, with high unemployment (Europe) overtake a
growing economy, with decreasing unemployment (the US)?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Mullen]

Chad Irby wrote:

> In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>
>>The EU will exceed the US economically next year (if it hasn't
>>already).
>
>
> How can a shrinking economy, with high unemployment (Europe) overtake a
> growing economy, with decreasing unemployment (the US)?
>
Can only happen if one or more of your assumptions here was wrong.

John

[Simon Robbins]

"tscottme" > wrote in message
...
> What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
> US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
> unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps
> communists is a happy coincidence.

You're quite insane.

Regards,

Si

[[email protected]]

Alan Minyard > wrote:

>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:11:46 -0600, "tscottme" > wrote:
>
>>Scott Ferrin > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
>>> stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
>>> situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
>>> years.
>>
>>What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
>>US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
>>unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps
>>communists is a happy coincidence.
>
>Roger that. The europeans are hardly our "friends".
>
>Al Minyard

Sad as it is to contemplate very few countries are genuinely
friendly with others. Friendship is usually predicated on
usefulness and can be ruined rather quickly.

I believe that communication is the key to increasing this
valuable commodity and I think that the internet plays a part in
this.

Now if we can just keep from killing each other long enough for
this and other communication avenues yet uninvented to take
effect we just might avoid ruining it all irretrievably with WMD.

I hope so anyway...or am I barking up an empty tree?...and are my
little grand-babies doomed to become small pools of flaming
smoking matter running off the edge of the concrete sidewalk near
their school?
--

-Gord.

[Jarg]

Not sure about his reasoning, but the possibility of war over Taiwanese
independence is always a possibility. No telling what would happen if
Taiwan declares independence (again being discussed now) but the US almost
surely intervene, and then it is probably a matter of time before Europe was
dragged in.

Jarg

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 07:04:27 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:
> >On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:09:10 +0000, (phil
> >hunt) wrote:
> >
> >>item: In October, a Chinese official report called for greater trade
> >>with the EU, and for the EU's arms embrago against China to be
> >>lifted.
> >>
> >>item: German foreign minister Gerhard Schroder recently visited
> >>China and said arms embrago should be lifted.
> >>
> >>item: a spokesman for EADS (large European arms manufacturer, which
> >>is one of the main partners in Eurofighter) recently called for the
> >>embargo to end.
> >>
> >>Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the
> >>Eurofighter. Also on the shopping list might be ASRAAM, Meteor and
> >>ASTER anti-aircraft missiles.
> >>
> >>There's a more detailed discussion of this on my blog at:
> >><http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html>
> >
> >
> >In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
> >stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
> >situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
> >years.
>
> You say that as if you assume hostility is obviously going to
> happen. I'd like to see your reasoning for that...
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
> the last two letters).
>
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keith Willshaw" >
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 8:11 AM
Subject: Re: China to buy Eurofighters?


>
> "tscottme" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Scott Ferrin > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
> > > stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
> > > situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
> > > years.
> >
> > What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
> > US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
> > unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps
> > communists is a happy coincidence.
> >
>
> In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
> While the French Government and some corporate bodies
> have pressed for it the EU itself has stated that it has no
> plans to lift the embargo and even if it did has stated that
> other agreements controlling the arms trade would prevent
> such deliveries taking place.
>
>

There is a GAO report dating from 1998 that states that the current EU
embargo does not enjoy a common interpretation; what makes you think that
these "other" controls will have any real impact?

>
> In fact the main suppliers of high tech weaponry to China
> have been Israel and Russia and even the USA supplied
> dual use technology supposedly for satellite launching
> that is believed to have been used in the Chinese
> missile program. Finally of course we miust recall that Boeing has a
> large operation in China, publically states that it supports
> the one China policy and Condit is president of the
> US China business council.

You are sort of ignoring reality here a bit, Keith. You seem to have
forgotten the UK (like those "peaceful" Searchwater radars that were agreed
for sale?), French (everything from Crotale to the licensed helicopters that
form the basis for the only real attack helo that the PLAAF has, the WZ-9),
Italy (Aspide and current attempts to sell Grifo for the PRC's new fighter
programs). Yes, the US has (pre-89) sold some very limited weapons to the
PRC, and likely, despite some attempt to control it through the contract
conditions, some of the past satellite assistance did yield some support to
the PLA missile program. But if you are going to hang the US for that, just
what the heck do you consider the recent news that the EU and the PRC are
hopping into the same bed with Gallileo? *That* program is going to have
more impact on PRC military programs than did the old US tech transfers.

Brooks
>
> Keith
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
John Mullen > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >
> >>The EU will exceed the US economically next year (if it hasn't
> >>already).
> >
> > How can a shrinking economy, with high unemployment (Europe) overtake a
> > growing economy, with decreasing unemployment (the US)?
> >
> Can only happen if one or more of your assumptions here was wrong.

Pick one, and tell us which, since none seem to be so according to any
figures actually released.

The only way the EU could pass the US economically would be if the US
economy reversed the current trend and shrank several percent in one
year, while the European economy reversed its trend and grew by the same
amount.

There's nothing in the cards to suggest either (this quarter's startling
growth in the US economy pretty much puts the nail in that coffin).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Scott Ferrin]

>You are sort of ignoring reality here a bit, Keith. You seem to have
>forgotten the UK (like those "peaceful" Searchwater radars that were agreed
>for sale?), French (everything from Crotale to the licensed helicopters that
>form the basis for the only real attack helo that the PLAAF has, the WZ-9),
>Italy (Aspide and current attempts to sell Grifo for the PRC's new fighter
>programs). Yes, the US has (pre-89) sold some very limited weapons to the
>PRC, and likely, despite some attempt to control it through the contract
>conditions, some of the past satellite assistance did yield some support to
>the PLA missile program. But if you are going to hang the US for that, just
>what the heck do you consider the recent news that the EU and the PRC are
>hopping into the same bed with Gallileo? *That* program is going to have
>more impact on PRC military programs than did the old US tech transfers.


Which is going to be a real bitch. Imagine a decade or two in the
future (if that ) and something serious going on with the
US/Taiwan/China thing. Even if the US had the capability at that
point to take out the Galileo satellites their hands would be tied by
the prospect of all the users from "allied" countries being SOL. Not
to mention the heat the US would take for doing it. Would it be
possible for the US to jam Galileo while leaving Navstar working? Who
knows but I'll bet someone is thinking real hard about it.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:12:33 +0000, (phil
hunt) wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 07:04:27 GMT, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:09:10 +0000, (phil
>>hunt) wrote:
>>
>>>item: In October, a Chinese official report called for greater trade
>>>with the EU, and for the EU's arms embrago against China to be
>>>lifted.
>>>
>>>item: German foreign minister Gerhard Schroder recently visited
>>>China and said arms embrago should be lifted.
>>>
>>>item: a spokesman for EADS (large European arms manufacturer, which
>>>is one of the main partners in Eurofighter) recently called for the
>>>embargo to end.
>>>
>>>Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the
>>>Eurofighter. Also on the shopping list might be ASRAAM, Meteor and
>>>ASTER anti-aircraft missiles.
>>>
>>>There's a more detailed discussion of this on my blog at:
>>><http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html>
>>
>>
>>In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
>>stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
>>situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
>>years.
>
>You say that as if you assume hostility is obviously going to
>happen. I'd like to see your reasoning for that...

And it seems you assume that it won't. Hoping that nothing will ever
happen isn't such a great idea because if it does and you're not
prepared or worse have strengthened a potential advisary, you're
begging for trouble. China is bent on becoming a superpower and also
has it's eye on expansion and intimidation. Do you think Taiwan has
500 missiles pointed at it for kicks? At some point China will decide
to give it a go. Either they get bitchslapped when they try it and
maybe decide to stay home or they win and say to themselves "hmmm
where to next?"

[Keith Willshaw]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
t...
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Keith Willshaw" >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
> Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 8:11 AM
> Subject: Re: China to buy Eurofighters?
>
>
> >
> > "tscottme" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Scott Ferrin > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
> > > > stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
> > > > situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
> > > > years.
> > >
> > > What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
> > > US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
> > > unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps
> > > communists is a happy coincidence.
> > >
> >
> > In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
> > While the French Government and some corporate bodies
> > have pressed for it the EU itself has stated that it has no
> > plans to lift the embargo and even if it did has stated that
> > other agreements controlling the arms trade would prevent
> > such deliveries taking place.
> >
> >
>
> There is a GAO report dating from 1998 that states that the current EU
> embargo does not enjoy a common interpretation; what makes you think that
> these "other" controls will have any real impact?
>

The fact that arms sales have not taken place would
seem a good indicator. Tje same GAO report you cite states

"GAO found no instances of EU members entering into new
agreements to sell China lethal military items after 1989, although some
delivered lethal and nonlethal military items to China during the
1990s--apparently in connection with pre-embargo agreements"

It also points out

"since 1989, the President has issued waivers to:
(a) allow the delivery to China of military items valued at $36.3
million to close out the U.S. government's pre-1989 defense agreements
with China; and (b) license commercial military exports valued at over
$312 million--primarily commercial satellite and encryption items"

In other words there is little to chhose here.


> >
> > In fact the main suppliers of high tech weaponry to China
> > have been Israel and Russia and even the USA supplied
> > dual use technology supposedly for satellite launching
> > that is believed to have been used in the Chinese
> > missile program. Finally of course we miust recall that Boeing has a
> > large operation in China, publically states that it supports
> > the one China policy and Condit is president of the
> > US China business council.
>
> You are sort of ignoring reality here a bit, Keith. You seem to have
> forgotten the UK (like those "peaceful" Searchwater radars that were
agreed
> for sale?), French (everything from Crotale to the licensed helicopters
that
> form the basis for the only real attack helo that the PLAAF has, the
WZ-9),

Searchwater as I'm sure you recall is hardly the most modern radar
in the world but I'll agree that the decision was unwise but the Crotale
sale
(and that of Aspide) took place before 1989, at a time when the US was
also happy to sell arms to China.

> Italy (Aspide and current attempts to sell Grifo for the PRC's new fighter
> programs). Yes, the US has (pre-89) sold some very limited weapons to the
> PRC, and likely, despite some attempt to control it through the contract
> conditions, some of the past satellite assistance did yield some support
to
> the PLA missile program. But if you are going to hang the US for that,
just
> what the heck do you consider the recent news that the EU and the PRC are
> hopping into the same bed with Gallileo? *That* program is going to have
> more impact on PRC military programs than did the old US tech transfers.
>

I'm not planning on hanging anybody, rather it seems apposite to
point out that other nations including the US and Israel have
sold China technology that is rather more sensitive and directly
related to weapons production.

Lets not forget what your GAO report also says

"Russia and the Middle East have provided
almost 90 percent of China's imported military items
during this period"

Israel being the main middle eastern player.

Hell the Israelis sold China one of the best Air to Air missile
systems in the world and one that included significant amounts of
US technology.

As for Galileo its a satnav system that is being set up as a
civilian enterprise and will be run as a commercial
organisation. How is that different from Boeing setting up
shop build commercial aircraft in China ?

I'd argue that tying China in to dependency on such an International
system is a plus not a minus if we are considering collective
security.

Keith

[Keith Willshaw]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >You are sort of ignoring reality here a bit, Keith. You seem to have
> >forgotten the UK (like those "peaceful" Searchwater radars that were
agreed
> >for sale?), French (everything from Crotale to the licensed helicopters
that
> >form the basis for the only real attack helo that the PLAAF has, the
WZ-9),
> >Italy (Aspide and current attempts to sell Grifo for the PRC's new
fighter
> >programs). Yes, the US has (pre-89) sold some very limited weapons to the
> >PRC, and likely, despite some attempt to control it through the contract
> >conditions, some of the past satellite assistance did yield some support
to
> >the PLA missile program. But if you are going to hang the US for that,
just
> >what the heck do you consider the recent news that the EU and the PRC are
> >hopping into the same bed with Gallileo? *That* program is going to have
> >more impact on PRC military programs than did the old US tech transfers.
>
>
> Which is going to be a real bitch. Imagine a decade or two in the
> future (if that ) and something serious going on with the
> US/Taiwan/China thing. Even if the US had the capability at that
> point to take out the Galileo satellites their hands would be tied by
> the prospect of all the users from "allied" countries being SOL. Not
> to mention the heat the US would take for doing it. Would it be
> possible for the US to jam Galileo while leaving Navstar working? Who
> knows but I'll bet someone is thinking real hard about it.

So how would it be better if the Chinese stuck with Navstar or
switched to Glonass ?

Keith

[Scott Ferrin]

>So how would it be better if the Chinese stuck with Navstar or
>switched to Glonass ?
>
>Keith
>


At least the US has control over Navstar. I don't know if they do
this or not but I don't imagine it would be impossible to say, deny
all service to a war zone except to those using such and such
decription.

[Jim Yanik]

"Adrian" > wrote in news:bqkjnj$22of8i$1@ID-
66783.news.uni-berlin.de:

>
> "Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 03:09:10 +0000, (phil
>> hunt) wrote:
>>
>> >item: In October, a Chinese official report called for greater trade
>> >with the EU, and for the EU's arms embrago against China to be
>> >lifted.
>> >
>> >item: German foreign minister Gerhard Schroder recently visited
>> >China and said arms embrago should be lifted.
>> >
>> >item: a spokesman for EADS (large European arms manufacturer, which
>> >is one of the main partners in Eurofighter) recently called for the
>> >embargo to end.
>> >
>> >Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the
>> >Eurofighter. Also on the shopping list might be ASRAAM, Meteor and
>> >ASTER anti-aircraft missiles.
>> >
>> >There's a more detailed discussion of this on my blog at:
>> ><http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html>
>>
>>
>> In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
>> stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
>> situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
>> years.
>
> Please explain. I see no conflict coming.
>
> Adrian Edmonds
>
>
>

Why do you think they are building more and more ICBMs,when Russia and the
US are downsizing their nuclear arsenals?

Or,the issue of Taiwan.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:36:29 -0800, Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:11:46 -0600, tscottme > wrote:
>> >Scott Ferrin > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
>> >> stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
>> >> situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
>> >> years.
>> >
>> >What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
>> >US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
>> >unless a full-scale war devastates the US.
>>
>> The EU will exceed the US economically next year (if it hasn't
>> already).
>
>Nope: http://www.eurolegal.org/uspoleur.shtml

Doesm't disagree with me. It shows thje EU's GDP as about 10% less
than the USA's, which difference will be made up next year when 10
new countries join. Furthermore, the euro has been appreciating
against the dollar (by 20% this year) so if we count GDP at current
exchange rates (the other way being PPP) the EU may already be
ahead.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 19:06:00 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> The EU will exceed the US economically next year (if it hasn't
>> already).
>
>How can a shrinking economy, with high unemployment (Europe) overtake a
>growing economy, with decreasing unemployment (the US)?

Prediction: in 2004 the EU's economy wil grow by more than the USA's
economy.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:44:55 -0000, Keith Willshaw > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:11:12 -0000, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
>> >
>> >In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
>> >While the French Government and some corporate bodies
>> >have pressed for it
>>
>> And the German govmt.
>
>Cite please.

<http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html>

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:40:10 GMT, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>
>At least the US has control over Navstar. I don't know if they do
>this or not but I don't imagine it would be impossible to say, deny
>all service to a war zone except to those using such and such
>decription.

Would it be technically possible to have a local positioning
system for military purposes? If it had lots of transmitters and
switched frequencies often, it would probably be hard to jam or
destroy.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 01:44:03 +0000 (UTC), Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
>Why do you think they are building more and more ICBMs,when Russia and the
>US are downsizing their nuclear arsenals?

To make sure they can deter an American attack, even if the USA has
ballistic missile defences, probably.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Tarver Engineering]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 19:06:00 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >
> >> The EU will exceed the US economically next year (if it hasn't
> >> already).
> >
> >How can a shrinking economy, with high unemployment (Europe) overtake a
> >growing economy, with decreasing unemployment (the US)?
>
> Prediction: in 2004 the EU's economy wil grow by more than the USA's
> economy.

Currebt US gains in productivity make that unlikely.

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:40:10 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:
> >
> >At least the US has control over Navstar. I don't know if they do
> >this or not but I don't imagine it would be impossible to say, deny
> >all service to a war zone except to those using such and such
> >decription.
>
> Would it be technically possible to have a local positioning
> system for military purposes? If it had lots of transmitters and
> switched frequencies often, it would probably be hard to jam or
> destroy.

Such systems have already been used for decades in the training arena. For
example, at FT Irwin (NTC), the maneuver area (a large area at that; some
350K acres when the system was originally set up) was covered with a
transmitter/receiver system that pinpointed the location of vehicles or even
manpacked locator transmitters, allowing the creation of a digital map of
each exercise for use in conducting the after action reviews (held in what
was appropriately called the "Starwars Room"). I believe that the latest
version of this system now uses GPS to provide the location data, though.

There is too much required work to establish such a system in a tactical
area. All of the points have to be carefully surveyed (and unless you use
GPS to do *that* then you are back to the old, slow manual survey loop)and
line-of-site considerations must be met. Then you'd have to worry about
redundancy, or else the loss of a single transmitter would be catastrophic.
At the pace of current operations, this is just not feasible.

GPS remains the best alternative, and remember that the "selective
availability" (SA) function remains capable of denying highly accurate GPS
usage to other parties within a theater of operations (without affecting
other worldwide users) if so desired (see http://www.igeb.gov/sa.shtml ).

Brooks
>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
> the last two letters).
>
>

[Adrian]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 08:40:56 +0200, Adrian > wrote:
> >"David Bromage" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> phil hunt wrote:
> >> > Any speculation as to what weapons China wants to buy? I think the
> >> > Eurofighter.
> >>
> >> Naturally the EU will agree in the hope of getting exports and secure
> >> the future of the EF. Expect an initial Chinese order for 24 units,
> >> followed by 300+ more built locally after they reverse engineer it.
> >>
> >> Cheers
> >> David
> >>
> >
> >That will take them quite a while. Some of the RF elements were hard to
do
> >even for Western technology. The AQ requirements and testing were beyond
> >what I had ever met when I worked on it.
>
> What's AQ?
>

Sorry, QA.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:36:29 -0800, Tarver Engineering > wrote:
> >

> >Nope: http://www.eurolegal.org/uspoleur.shtml
>
> Doesm't disagree with me. It shows thje EU's GDP as about 10% less
> than the USA's, which difference will be made up next year when 10
> new countries join.

Not really. The additional countries all have economies that are pretty
much in the basket right now, and adding a bunch of new poor people
won't make much difference, especially since the EU is in such a hurry
to fall apart.

> Furthermore, the euro has been appreciating against the dollar (by
> 20% this year) so if we count GDP at current exchange rates (the
> other way being PPP) the EU may already be ahead.

You should remember that the Euro/Dollar ratio has been manipulated very
hard by some of the European countries, and is showing signs of
reversing - drastically.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 19:06:00 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >
> >> The EU will exceed the US economically next year (if it hasn't
> >> already).
> >
> >How can a shrinking economy, with high unemployment (Europe) overtake a
> >growing economy, with decreasing unemployment (the US)?
>
> Prediction: in 2004 the EU's economy wil grow by more than the USA's
> economy.

Evidence ofr that prediction? All of the normal indicators show the
exact *opposite* of that trend. High unemployment in the EU, flat
productivity per worker in the EU (versus increasing productivity in the
US).

*Nobody* is seriously expecting serious expansion in the EU economy,
except as a small mirror effect of the expanding US economy. The US had
a higher increase this *quarter* than the EU has had this *year*.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Willshaw]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:44:55 -0000, Keith Willshaw
> wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:11:12 -0000, Keith Willshaw
> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
> >> >While the French Government and some corporate bodies
> >> >have pressed for it
> >>
> >> And the German govmt.
> >
> >Cite please.
>
> <http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html>
>

Hearsay at best

I'd rather prefer a record of a statement by a member of the German
government.

Keith

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 04:10:46 GMT, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 00:40:10 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >At least the US has control over Navstar. I don't know if they do
>> >this or not but I don't imagine it would be impossible to say, deny
>> >all service to a war zone except to those using such and such
>> >decription.
>>
>> Would it be technically possible to have a local positioning
>> system for military purposes? If it had lots of transmitters and
>> switched frequencies often, it would probably be hard to jam or
>> destroy.
>
>Such systems have already been used for decades in the training arena. For
>example, at FT Irwin (NTC), the maneuver area (a large area at that; some
>350K acres when the system was originally set up) was covered with a
>transmitter/receiver system that pinpointed the location of vehicles or even
>manpacked locator transmitters, allowing the creation of a digital map of
>each exercise for use in conducting the after action reviews (held in what
>was appropriately called the "Starwars Room"). I believe that the latest
>version of this system now uses GPS to provide the location data, though.
>
>There is too much required work to establish such a system in a tactical
>area. All of the points have to be carefully surveyed (and unless you use
>GPS to do *that* then you are back to the old, slow manual survey loop)and
>line-of-site considerations must be met. Then you'd have to worry about
>redundancy, or else the loss of a single transmitter would be catastrophic.
>At the pace of current operations, this is just not feasible.
>
>GPS remains the best alternative, and remember that the "selective
>availability" (SA) function remains capable of denying highly accurate GPS
>usage to other parties within a theater of operations (without affecting
>other worldwide users) if so desired (see http://www.igeb.gov/sa.shtml ).
>
>Brooks


I don't imagine China and Europe would give the US that kind of
control over Galileo ;-)

[Alan Minyard]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 20:15:13 GMT, "Gord Beaman" ) wrote:

>Alan Minyard > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 06:11:46 -0600, "tscottme" > wrote:
>>
>>>Scott Ferrin > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my opinion selling them top of the line stuff is the height of
>>>> stupidity. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to figure out what the
>>>> situation is going to be with China and the West in ten to fifteen
>>>> years.
>>>
>>>What makes you think the Europeans don't want the next problem for the
>>>US to be as bad as possible? They have no hope of exceeding the US
>>>unless a full-scale war devastates the US. The fact that it helps
>>>communists is a happy coincidence.
>>
>>Roger that. The europeans are hardly our "friends".
>>
>>Al Minyard
>
>Sad as it is to contemplate very few countries are genuinely
>friendly with others. Friendship is usually predicated on
>usefulness and can be ruined rather quickly.
>
>I believe that communication is the key to increasing this
>valuable commodity and I think that the internet plays a part in
>this.
>
>Now if we can just keep from killing each other long enough for
>this and other communication avenues yet uninvented to take
>effect we just might avoid ruining it all irretrievably with WMD.
>
>I hope so anyway...or am I barking up an empty tree?...and are my
>little grand-babies doomed to become small pools of flaming
>smoking matter running off the edge of the concrete sidewalk near
>their school?

I would opine that "friends" and "they are about to nuke us" are many
shades of gray apart. France has nukes, and "hates" the US, but they
are at least smart enough to realize that attacking the US with Nukes
would be national suicide.

Selling the most advanced aircraft that you are capable of building
to obviously hostile, repressive regimes is not the act of a "friend"

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>Selling the most advanced aircraft that you are capable of building
>to obviously hostile, repressive regimes is not the act of a "friend"

Al, you do realise that France is not part of the Eurofighter consortium
and so is only interested in selling Rafale? (Which story hasn't
appeared... yet).

Now me, I'd be more worried about how military technology seems to go to
Israel and then appear in Beijing shortly thereafter, but that's just
me.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 21:35:31 GMT, Scott Ferrin > wrote:
>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:12:33 +0000, (phil
>hunt) wrote:
>>You say that as if you assume hostility is obviously going to
>>happen. I'd like to see your reasoning for that...
>
>And it seems you assume that it won't.

I don't recall making any such assumption.

>Hoping that nothing will ever
>happen isn't such a great idea because if it does and you're not
>prepared or worse have strengthened a potential advisary,

Many countries are potential adversaries. And trading with them
(whether in arms or other goods) strengthens them. Should Europe
then not trade with large parts of the world?

China isn't currently a military threat angainst Europe: they've no
motive to attack us and in any case would have to fight their way
through several thousand miles of Asian countries to do so.

China might get involved in wars with one or more of its neighbours.
If it did, possession of Eurofighters would help it. How might these
neighbours respond? By beefing up their air forces themselves,
probably. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are all rich countries who
could easily afford to spend more on air power. If they did, it's
reasonable to expect that some of the contracts would go Europe's
way (the best counter to a Eurofighter may be another Eurofighter).

> you're
>begging for trouble. China is bent on becoming a superpower

Indeed they are doing so, with an average 8% yearly economic growth
rate.

>and also
>has it's eye on expansion and intimidation.

The last time China went to war was 1979, against Vietnam.

I think it's unlikely they will start a war any time soon. Why would
they? Time is on their side (their economy is growing faster than
others), and they know it. Far better, from their point of view, not
to fight until they are stronger. By which time (2020 or so), the
Eurofighter will no longer be the latest thing, leading to automatic
air dominance.

>Do you think Taiwan has
>500 missiles pointed at it for kicks? At some point China will decide
>to give it a go.

Maybe, maybe not.

If China did attack Taiwan, it's likely that even if they did win,
both theirs and the Taiwanese economies would be ruined (consider
the result of a Taiwanese air raid on the Three Gorges dam). So in
winning the war, they'd set back their economic development by
decades, making themselves weaker. This would not the the action of
rational people.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:22:20 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 19:06:00 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> > (phil hunt) wrote:
>> >
>> >> The EU will exceed the US economically next year (if it hasn't
>> >> already).
>> >
>> >How can a shrinking economy, with high unemployment (Europe) overtake a
>> >growing economy, with decreasing unemployment (the US)?
>>
>> Prediction: in 2004 the EU's economy wil grow by more than the USA's
>> economy.
>
>Evidence ofr that prediction?

75 million people will join the EU in 2004, boosting its GDP by 10%.
Normal economic growth will be maybe 2-3%, for a total of 12-13%.

I doubt that the USA's economy will grow by that much.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:19:16 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:36:29 -0800, Tarver Engineering > wrote:
>> >
>
>> >Nope: http://www.eurolegal.org/uspoleur.shtml
>>
>> Doesm't disagree with me. It shows thje EU's GDP as about 10% less
>> than the USA's, which difference will be made up next year when 10
>> new countries join.
>
>Not really. The additional countries all have economies that are pretty
>much in the basket right now, and adding a bunch of new poor people
>won't make much difference,

It'll make about 10% of difference. If you disagree, come up with
exact figures to refute this.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:19:16 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>> Furthermore, the euro has been appreciating against the dollar (by
>> 20% this year) so if we count GDP at current exchange rates (the
>> other way being PPP) the EU may already be ahead.
>
>You should remember that the Euro/Dollar ratio has been manipulated very
>hard by some of the European countries,

Actually, European countries don't have the power to control
exchange rates. If you don't agree, ask George Soros or Norman
Lamont, who will no doubt put you right.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:22:20 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >

> >> Prediction: in 2004 the EU's economy wil grow by more than the USA's
> >> economy.
> >
> >Evidence of that prediction?
>
> 75 million people will join the EU in 2004, boosting its GDP by 10%.

6% at best. These aren't rich, or even average, countries.

> Normal economic growth will be maybe 2-3%, for a total of 12-13%.

Over the last year, the EU economy grew by 0.6%, with no particular
trend to do better over the next year, while the primary "Euro zone"
grew by a whopping 0.3%. In the meantime, the US economy grew about 2%,
in a very bad year, about three times faster than Europe's economy. And
US economic growth has teken off since those numbers came out.

Even if the EU met both of your predictions, they'd pretty much tie the
*current* US economy, and that's not going to happen.

> I doubt that the USA's economy will grow by that much.

Current plans are for 3% to 4% over the next year, conservatively. We
had enough growth this *quarter* to allow 2.5% for the year, even with
no growth in the other quarters. If the economy stays at anything like
current rates, we could see 5% year-to-year growth...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:19:16 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:36:29 -0800, Tarver Engineering >
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >
> >> >Nope: http://www.eurolegal.org/uspoleur.shtml
> >>
> >> Doesm't disagree with me. It shows thje EU's GDP as about 10% less
> >> than the USA's, which difference will be made up next year when 10
> >> new countries join.
> >
> >Not really. The additional countries all have economies that are pretty
> >much in the basket right now, and adding a bunch of new poor people
> >won't make much difference,
>
> It'll make about 10% of difference. If you disagree, come up with
> exact figures to refute this.

Right after you come up with the ones that support it...

....and even if they *did* manage to come up with that 10% extra, they'd
only barely match *this* year's numbers, never mind the growth we're
seeing in the US (that's not happening in the EU, which might see a
massive 0.5% growth instead of your blindingly optimistic 3%).

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:19:16 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >> Furthermore, the euro has been appreciating against the dollar (by
> >> 20% this year) so if we count GDP at current exchange rates (the
> >> other way being PPP) the EU may already be ahead.
> >
> >You should remember that the Euro/Dollar ratio has been manipulated very
> >hard by some of the European countries,
>
> Actually, European countries don't have the power to control
> exchange rates. If you don't agree, ask George Soros or Norman
> Lamont, who will no doubt put you right.

Since you mention two of the people who helped manipulate those currency
values, you've supported my position...

Of course, some of that value difference came from this side of the
pond, since a low dollar value versus the Euro gives some trade
advantages.

But trying to pretend that governments don't manipulate exchange rates?

That's just silly.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Chad Irby
> writes
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>> Actually, European countries don't have the power to control
>> exchange rates. If you don't agree, ask George Soros or Norman
>> Lamont, who will no doubt put you right.
>
>Since you mention two of the people who helped manipulate those currency
>values, you've supported my position...

Not quite... Lamont was the Chancellor of the Exchequer and tried to
hold sterling's exchange rate in place.

Soros was one of the currency speculators who demonstrated the folly of
this action, at considerable financial cost to the Treasury and
political loss to the Government.

Final score; speculators won, Government lost.

>But trying to pretend that governments don't manipulate exchange rates?

Manipulate, sure. but with limited effect. Control? That's when
speculators get rich, foreign reserves get depleted, and treasurers end
up looking stupid.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 07:52:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:22:20 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> > (phil hunt) wrote:
>> >
>
>> >> Prediction: in 2004 the EU's economy wil grow by more than the USA's
>> >> economy.
>> >
>> >Evidence of that prediction?
>>
>> 75 million people will join the EU in 2004, boosting its GDP by 10%.
>
>6% at best.

Cite?


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:07:11 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:19:16 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> > (phil hunt) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:36:29 -0800, Tarver Engineering >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >
>> >> >Nope: http://www.eurolegal.org/uspoleur.shtml
>> >>
>> >> Doesm't disagree with me. It shows thje EU's GDP as about 10% less
>> >> than the USA's, which difference will be made up next year when 10
>> >> new countries join.
>> >
>> >Not really. The additional countries all have economies that are pretty
>> >much in the basket right now, and adding a bunch of new poor people
>> >won't make much difference,
>>
>> It'll make about 10% of difference. If you disagree, come up with
>> exact figures to refute this.
>
>Right after you come up with the ones that support it...

Certainly:
<http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union>

Now, let's see if Chad Irby is going to keep his word...

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:28:52 +0100, Gerd Koegler > wrote:
>Keith Willshaw wrote:
>> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 18:44:55 -0000, Keith Willshaw
>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
>>>> . ..
>>>>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 13:11:12 -0000, Keith Willshaw
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact there is no prospect of the ban being lifted anytime soon.
>>>>>> While the French Government and some corporate bodies
>>>>>> have pressed for it
>>>>>
>>>>> And the German govmt.
>>>>
>>>> Cite please.
>>>
>>> <http://www.cabalamat.org/weblog/art_97.html>
>>>
>>
>> Hearsay at best
>>
>> I'd rather prefer a record of a statement by a member of the German
>> government.
>
>Its true:
>http://de.news.yahoo.com/031201/3/3s8f5.html
>http://www.sueddeutsche.de/deutschland/artikel/752/22730/

Or you could search Google news for "China EU arms embargo".
Produces 23 results when I do it:

<http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&scoring=d&q=China+EU+arms+embargo>

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:07:11 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >
> >> It'll make about 10% of difference. If you disagree, come up with
> >> exact figures to refute this.
> >
> >Right after you come up with the ones that support it...
>
> Certainly:
> <http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union>
>
> Now, let's see if Chad Irby is going to keep his word...

Here you go...

The 2002 EU GDP was about 8,623 billion dollars.
The 2002 US GDP was about 10,303 billion dollars.

Adding in the 841 billion dollars from the 2004 potential additions
(which might not happen), you get:

EU: 9,464 billion
US: 10,303 billion

Note that these are 2002 numbers, and with the mild growth in the US
economy versus the stagnant to depressed EU economy, it's actually more
in favor of the US right now.

The EU would need a 10% economic increase by this time next year
(seriously *not* happening), while the US would have to stay stagnant
(also seriously *not* happening).

So, you're just wrong. Again.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 07:52:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >
> >> 75 million people will join the EU in 2004, boosting its GDP by 10%.
> >
> >6% at best.
>
> Cite?

I was wrong, because I overestimated the EU economy. It's about 10%,
but it's not enough to even manage a tie... they're still about 10%
short.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Mullen]

phil hunt wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:07:11 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>>In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:19:16 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 10:36:29 -0800, Tarver Engineering >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope: http://www.eurolegal.org/uspoleur.shtml
>>>>>
>>>>>Doesm't disagree with me. It shows thje EU's GDP as about 10% less
>>>>>than the USA's, which difference will be made up next year when 10
>>>>>new countries join.
>>>>
>>>>Not really. The additional countries all have economies that are pretty
>>>>much in the basket right now, and adding a bunch of new poor people
>>>>won't make much difference,
>>>
>>>It'll make about 10% of difference. If you disagree, come up with
>>>exact figures to refute this.
>>
>>Right after you come up with the ones that support it...
>
>
> Certainly:
> <http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union>
>
> Now, let's see if Chad Irby is going to keep his word...
>
Would be the first time...

John

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:58:48 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:07:11 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>> >In article >,
>> > (phil hunt) wrote:
>> >
>> >> It'll make about 10% of difference. If you disagree, come up with
>> >> exact figures to refute this.
>> >
>> >Right after you come up with the ones that support it...
>>
>> Certainly:
>> <http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_the_European_Union>
>>
>> Now, let's see if Chad Irby is going to keep his word...
>
>Here you go...
>
>The 2002 EU GDP was about 8,623 billion dollars.
>The 2002 US GDP was about 10,303 billion dollars.

What's your source? Are these at market exchange rates or PPP?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Chad Irby]

John Mullen > wrote:

> phil hunt wrote:
>
> > Now, let's see if Chad Irby is going to keep his word...
> >
> Would be the first time...

John is obviously still upset that Iraq isn't a quagmire yet.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Mullen]

Chad Irby wrote:
> John Mullen > wrote:
>
>
>>phil hunt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Now, let's see if Chad Irby is going to keep his word...
>>>
>>
>>Would be the first time...
>
>
> John is obviously still upset that Iraq isn't a quagmire yet.
>
It isn't? But, hey, credit where it's due, well done for (sort of)
answering the question you were asked.

John

[tadaa]

> The 2002 EU GDP was about 8,623 billion dollars.
> The 2002 US GDP was about 10,303 billion dollars.
>
> Adding in the 841 billion dollars from the 2004 potential additions
> (which might not happen), you get:
>
> EU: 9,464 billion
> US: 10,303 billion

What is the exchange rate of that 2002 figure?

[WaltBJ]

Great. China wants to upgrade their technology the quick way. Sure, it
will result in them being one generation behind by the time they put
the Eurofighter technology into effect. Just who are they going to
fight? Who's going to fight them? If they attack Russia or India will
the EU act? Will NATO? If they move into SEA who acts then? China
needs oil - now what? Of course, with their giant current balance they
can afford to buy all they need - will they keep on buying it? Here's
something to really chill you out - is Taiwan going nuke? China keeps
telling them to shape up or they'll move on them - a nuke or three in
the Three Gorges lake would be one terrible threat. Think about it.
Walt BJ

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 18:58:48 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >In article >,
>
> >Here you go...
> >
> >The 2002 EU GDP was about 8,623 billion dollars.
> >The 2002 US GDP was about 10,303 billion dollars.
>
> What's your source? Are these at market exchange rates or PPP?

It's from one of the European Union pages, but I found the same numbers
in several different spots.

It's not at current exchange rates, though, but we'd have to allow for
the European countries that aren't using the Euro versus the ones that
are, and account for differences in economies (some of the Euro-using
economies have tanked, and some of the non-Euro economies have not, and
vice versa).

I did a quick search of the economic predictors on the Web, and nobody
expect the dollar to stay weak for more than a few more weeks, since the
US economy is coming back so strong (and nobody in the EU is anywhere
near that).

The funny part about this is that you're desperate for the EU to be
"stronger" than the US economy, with what's going to be more than twice
as many people. This is even funnier when you see the signs of the EU
starting to fragment (the recent exclusion of France and Germany from
their national debt treaty is the biggest warning signal of this, with
more to come). The EU would have to change drastically for it to be
considered "one economy."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Alan Minyard]

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:09:23 +0000, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:

>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>Selling the most advanced aircraft that you are capable of building
>>to obviously hostile, repressive regimes is not the act of a "friend"
>
>Al, you do realise that France is not part of the Eurofighter consortium
>and so is only interested in selling Rafale? (Which story hasn't
>appeared... yet).
>
>Now me, I'd be more worried about how military technology seems to go to
>Israel and then appear in Beijing shortly thereafter, but that's just
>me.

I certainly agree with regards to Israel, we need to put a muzzle on that hound.
As for Rafale, it is a non-starter on the international market, but not due to any
qualms on the part of the French. It is simply a poor aircraft.

Al Minyard

[Alan Minyard]

On 7 Dec 2003 15:34:49 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

>Great. China wants to upgrade their technology the quick way. Sure, it
>will result in them being one generation behind by the time they put
>the Eurofighter technology into effect. Just who are they going to
>fight? Who's going to fight them? If they attack Russia or India will
>the EU act? Will NATO? If they move into SEA who acts then? China
>needs oil - now what? Of course, with their giant current balance they
>can afford to buy all they need - will they keep on buying it? Here's
>something to really chill you out - is Taiwan going nuke? China keeps
>telling them to shape up or they'll move on them - a nuke or three in
>the Three Gorges lake would be one terrible threat. Think about it.
>Walt BJ

Actually, the eurofighter is already at least two generations behind the
F-22/F-35. By the time the Chinese get one it will be 3-4 generations
behind.

Al Minyard

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:38:28 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>I did a quick search of the economic predictors on the Web, and nobody
>expect the dollar to stay weak for more than a few more weeks,

Then

(a) they'd be buying dollars in expectation of this and the value of
the dollar would rise

(b) futures prices would relect this

>The funny part about this is that you're desperate for the EU to be
>"stronger" than the US economy, with what's going to be more than twice
>as many people.

No. 450 million compared to 280 million. The EU might have twice the
USA when south-eastern Europe and Turkey join, but that would be
later.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:38:28 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> >I did a quick search of the economic predictors on the Web, and nobody
> >expect the dollar to stay weak for more than a few more weeks,
>
> Then
>
> (a) they'd be buying dollars in expectation of this and the value of
> the dollar would rise
>
> (b) futures prices would relect this

They're starting to. Small right now, but it's a trend people have
started to notice. Of course, you won't see big number changes until
it's too late (just like what heppened when the Euro went up a few
months back).

> No. 450 million compared to 280 million. The EU might have twice the
> USA when south-eastern Europe and Turkey join, but that would be
> later.

Good point.

So... having an economy about the same size of the US, with 50% more
people, and a declining economy *and* declining population for the next
half-century. Still not too good for the future.

And that's assuming that the EU holds together, and that's looking less
and less probable as time goes by. Like Germany and France ignoring the
debt ceiling.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:38:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:38:28 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>> >
>> >I did a quick search of the economic predictors on the Web, and nobody
>> >expect the dollar to stay weak for more than a few more weeks,
>>
>> Then
>>
>> (a) they'd be buying dollars in expectation of this and the value of
>> the dollar would rise
>>
>> (b) futures prices would relect this
>
>They're starting to. Small right now, but it's a trend people have
>started to notice.

URL?

> Of course, you won't see big number changes until
>it's too late (just like what heppened when the Euro went up a few
>months back).

So how uch as you personally betting on the $ rising in value?

>So... having an economy about the same size of the US, with 50% more
>people, and a declining economy

Nope, growing. Economic growth in the EU has been slower that in the
USA for the last decade or so, true, but for most of the EU's
existance it's been higher. Furthermore, over long periods of time,
both tend to grow at the same rate regarding GDP/head. This is
because they both use the same technology, and tech advances are
the main cause of economic growth (we're richer now than we were 100
or 200 years ago, because it is easier (less labour and/or raw
materials) to make stuff now than then).

>*and* declining population for the next
>half-century.

These are just predictions. Note that:

1. Europe's population is currently increasing, albeit slowly

2. if need be, Europe could import any number of immigrants to make
up numbers (the UK alone has net immigration of a few hundred
thousand a year)

3. most workers in the economy, up to the 2040s, have already been
born today, and anyone born today won't be a productive part of the
workforce for another 20 years. Therefore any shortage of people
won't begin to bite for another 20-40 years.

4. European know birthrates are low, and have plenty of time to
think of ways to raise them (better child care? subsidies for
parents? etc)

5. the further we go into the future, the harder it gets to predict
anything at all. In 50 years time there's a good chance (my guess
is at least 50% probability) that old age will be curable, and
people will be effectively immortal (barring accidents). Then, old
people will be an economic asset, because they'll have the vigour of
youth combined vwith the experience of age.

>And that's assuming that the EU holds together, and that's looking less
>and less probable as time goes by.

No country has ever wanted to leave the EU, and many want to join.

>Like Germany and France ignoring the
>debt ceiling.

Probably a good thing to get rid of the Stability pact.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[John Cook]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:18:35 -0600, Alan Minyard
> wrote:

>On 7 Dec 2003 15:34:49 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:
>
>>Great. China wants to upgrade their technology the quick way. Sure, it
>>will result in them being one generation behind by the time they put
>>the Eurofighter technology into effect. Just who are they going to
>>fight? Who's going to fight them? If they attack Russia or India will
>>the EU act? Will NATO? If they move into SEA who acts then? China
>>needs oil - now what? Of course, with their giant current balance they
>>can afford to buy all they need - will they keep on buying it? Here's
>>something to really chill you out - is Taiwan going nuke? China keeps
>>telling them to shape up or they'll move on them - a nuke or three in
>>the Three Gorges lake would be one terrible threat. Think about it.
>>Walt BJ
>
>Actually, the eurofighter is already at least two generations behind the
>F-22/F-35. By the time the Chinese get one it will be 3-4 generations
>behind.


Hmmm... Typhoon at least two generations behind the F-22 and
F-35???????, Ok I'll bite.

What aircraft are members of these two generations??... Go on I'm
interested... No... Really I mean it... I'd love to know...

Typhoon

..................?

..................?

F-35

F-22

>Al Minyard

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[jb]

John Cook > wrote in message >...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:18:35 -0600, Alan Minyard
> > wrote:
>
> >Actually, the eurofighter is already at least two generations behind the
> >F-22/F-35. By the time the Chinese get one it will be 3-4 generations
> >behind.
>
>
> Hmmm... Typhoon at least two generations behind the F-22 and
> F-35???????, Ok I'll bite.

Al is right on this one. It will take 2 generations until the F22
becomes operational. If they don't throw the entire project into the
recycle bin, that is.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:38:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:

> >And that's assuming that the EU holds together, and that's looking less
> >and less probable as time goes by.
>
> No country has ever wanted to leave the EU, and many want to join.

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/09/weu09.xm
l&sSheet=/news/2003/12/09/ixworld.html>

Currently, more than *half* of the population of the EU think joining
the EU was a bad idea. In England, only about 1/3 of the population
want to be in the EU right now.

I had a nice long post, addressing each of your points in turn, but this
is the real crux of it.

You support the EU in all of these ways, but you don't even understand
that the people *in* the EU don't even like it...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[John Mullen]

Chad Irby wrote:
> In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:38:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>
>>>And that's assuming that the EU holds together, and that's looking less
>>>and less probable as time goes by.
>>
>>No country has ever wanted to leave the EU, and many want to join.
>
>
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/09/weu09.xm
> l&sSheet=/news/2003/12/09/ixworld.html>



Sorry, the page you have requested is not available

This error message may occur for a number of reasons:

* We are unable to locate any more files relating to this subject
* The file may have been moved or deleted because it is out of date
* You may have followed a link from another web site that contains
an incorrect or out of date URL (web page address)
* You may have typed an incorrect URL into your browser
* There may be an error on the telegraph.co.uk site.

If you think there is an error, please let us know by sending an e-mail
to the Webmasters at . Please provide full
details of the referring page's URL and the page you were expecting.

If the web page you require is available on the telegraph.co.uk web site
you should be able to find it by using our search engine on telegraph.co.uk


>
> Currently, more than *half* of the population of the EU think joining
> the EU was a bad idea. In England, only about 1/3 of the population
> want to be in the EU right now.

Cite, please.
>
> I had a nice long post, addressing each of your points in turn, but this
> is the real crux of it.
>
> You support the EU in all of these ways, but you don't even understand
> that the people *in* the EU don't even like it...
>

Whereas you don't understand, full stop.

John

[Keith Willshaw]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:38:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
> > >And that's assuming that the EU holds together, and that's looking less
> > >and less probable as time goes by.
> >
> > No country has ever wanted to leave the EU, and many want to join.
>
> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/09/weu09.xm
> l&sSheet=/news/2003/12/09/ixworld.html>
>
> Currently, more than *half* of the population of the EU think joining
> the EU was a bad idea. In England, only about 1/3 of the population
> want to be in the EU right now.
>
> I had a nice long post, addressing each of your points in turn, but this
> is the real crux of it.
>
> You support the EU in all of these ways, but you don't even understand
> that the people *in* the EU don't even like it...
>

Hmm

I am no Europhile but it has to be said that any precis of a 264 page
document that
is as short as this one is has to be regarded as suspect.

Having read the document (version 59) I am confirmed in that view

While its true that only 30% of the UK population said
membership was a good thing only 25% said it was
a bad thing

The percentages saying it was bad for other countries were

Holland 5%
Ireland 5%
Belgium 7%
Spain 6%
Greece 8%
Germany 8%
France 12%
Denmark 17%

So a bald statement that a majority of EU citizens think
membership is a bad idea is simply a misrepresentation.

When people were asked if they thought their country
had benefitted from EU membership 2/3 of those
polled said they thought it had.

The worst case poll was in the UK where 44% said the UK
had not benefitted and 34% said thet thought we had

Keith

[Chad Irby]

John Mullen > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:
> > In article >,
> > (phil hunt) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:38:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>And that's assuming that the EU holds together, and that's looking less
> >>>and less probable as time goes by.
> >>
> >>No country has ever wanted to leave the EU, and many want to join.
> >
> >
> > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/09/weu09.xm
> > l&sSheet=/news/2003/12/09/ixworld.html>
>
>
> Sorry, the page you have requested is not available
>
> This error message may occur for a number of reasons:

Works for me, right out of my post.

Maybe you should try again, more carefully.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
John Mullen > wrote:

> Chad Irby wrote:

> > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/09/weu09.xm
> > l&sSheet=/news/2003/12/09/ixworld.html>

Note: worked fine first time, and the three times I've tried it since,
directly out of my post.

> > Currently, more than *half* of the population of the EU think joining
> > the EU was a bad idea. In England, only about 1/3 of the population
> > want to be in the EU right now.
>
> Cite, please.

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/09/weu09.xm
l&sSheet=/news/2003/12/09/ixworld.html>

Still works for me. Maybe you should try again.

If you still have trouble, that's your problem.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

> I am no Europhile but it has to be said that any precis of a 264 page
> document that is as short as this one is has to be regarded as
> suspect.
>
> Having read the document (version 59) I am confirmed in that view
>
> While its true that only 30% of the UK population said
> membership was a good thing only 25% said it was
> a bad thing

....with a range of people in between.

If you can't get more than half of your people to agree that it's
"good," that doesn't say much for it, does it?

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Keith Willshaw]

"Chad Irby" > wrote in message
m...
> In article >,
> "Keith Willshaw" > wrote:
>

> >
> > While its true that only 30% of the UK population said
> > membership was a good thing only 25% said it was
> > a bad thing
>
> ...with a range of people in between.
>

Saying it was neither good nor bad, reality is a
large number of people have no string feelings
one way or the other.

> If you can't get more than half of your people to agree that it's
> "good," that doesn't say much for it, does it?
>

And if only 25% thinks its bad it most be wonderful.

Thats why opinion polls are so beloved of politicians
they can make them prove anything they like.

Keith

[[email protected]]

Chad Irby > wrote:

>In article >,
> John Mullen > wrote:
>
>> Chad Irby wrote:
>
>> > <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/09/weu09.xm
>> > l&sSheet=/news/2003/12/09/ixworld.html>
>
>Note: worked fine first time, and the three times I've tried it since,
>directly out of my post.
>
>> > Currently, more than *half* of the population of the EU think joining
>> > the EU was a bad idea. In England, only about 1/3 of the population
>> > want to be in the EU right now.
>>
>> Cite, please.
>
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/09/weu09.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/12/09/ixworld.html>
>
>Still works for me. Maybe you should try again.
>
>If you still have trouble, that's your problem.

You may have to 'reconstruct' it (some browsers break it into two
lines)

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:16:31 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>In article >,
> (phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 00:38:06 GMT, Chad Irby > wrote:
>
>> >And that's assuming that the EU holds together, and that's looking less
>> >and less probable as time goes by.
>>
>> No country has ever wanted to leave the EU, and many want to join.
>
><http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/09/weu09.xm
>l&sSheet=/news/2003/12/09/ixworld.html>
>
>Currently, more than *half* of the population of the EU think joining
>the EU was a bad idea.

Where does it say that? I can't see anywhere, either in the
Telegraph report, or the Eurobarometer poll itself. I think you are
misunderstanding the poll. (Note also the Telegraph has an axe to
grind: it tries at every opportunity to show the EU in as bad light
as possible. Note that in this article it doesn't give full
figures).

In the Telegraph, it says 48% think their country's membership is a
good thing; it doesn't say how many think it is a bad thing. The
latest EB poll, which the Telegraph refers to, isn't published yet,
so I can't comment on it. However the previous one (EB59) is
published. In this one:

54% think the EU is a good thing
11% bad thing
27% neither good nor bad

The remaining 8% presumably don't know or wouldn't say.

So we have 54% good v. 11% bad.

In the latest poll, it's probably something like 48% good v. 14%
bad.


> In England, only about 1/3 of the population
>want to be in the EU right now.

Yes, and probably only 1/3 want to be out.

>I had a nice long post, addressing each of your points in turn, but this
>is the real crux of it.
>
>You support the EU in all of these ways, but you don't even understand
>that the people *in* the EU don't even like it...

Only if you could read minds -- which you can't -- would you know
what I believe. I'm perfectly well aware that enthusiasm for the EU
is rare in Britain. There have been many polls over the last 20
years showing low active support, and a few that have shown a
majority in favour of leaving. However the british have never, when
it has come down to it, actually decided to leave the EU.

Why not? it's not because they've never have opportunities to elect
parties who wanted to leave. It's just that in practise most Britons
think membership of the EU is essential and inevitable, that
although they groan about it, deep down they don't really want to
leave, which is why whenever major UK parties have advocated
leaving, for example Labour in 1983 or Tories in 2001, they've been
badly defeated at the polls.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:53:11 +0000, phil hunt > wrote:
>
>> In England, only about 1/3 of the population
>>want to be in the EU right now.
>
>Yes, and probably only 1/3 want to be out.

Note that in EB59, in the UK: only 30% say the EU is a good thing
but only 25% say it's a bad thing.

Look it up yourself: it's on page 37, and the EB59 results are
available from:

<http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/standard_en.htm>

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 17:53:11 +0000, phil hunt >
> wrote:
> >
> >> In England, only about 1/3 of the population
> >>want to be in the EU right now.
> >
> >Yes, and probably only 1/3 want to be out.
>
> Note that in EB59, in the UK: only 30% say the EU is a good thing
> but only 25% say it's a bad thing.

Hey - you're right.

Less than one in three EU citizens think the EU is a good thing.

Thanks.

Different from what I claimed before, but just about as damning.

> Look it up yourself: it's on page 37, and the EB59 results are
> available from:
>
> <http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/standard_en.htm>

One nice quote:

"However, we are still far from the rates observed at the beginning of
the Nineties when 72% of Europeans considered EU Membership to be a good
thing."

Not a good trend.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 16:58:40 +0000, John Mullen > wrote:
>>
>> <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/12/09/weu09.xm
>> l&sSheet=/news/2003/12/09/ixworld.html>
>
>
>Sorry, the page you have requested is not available
>
>This error message may occur for a number of reasons:
>
> * We are unable to locate any more files relating to this subject
> * The file may have been moved or deleted because it is out of date
> * You may have followed a link from another web site that contains
>an incorrect or out of date URL (web page address)
> * You may have typed an incorrect URL into your browser
> * There may be an error on the telegraph.co.uk site.
>
>If you think there is an error, please let us know by sending an e-mail
>to the Webmasters at . Please provide full
>details of the referring page's URL and the page you were expecting.
>
>If the web page you require is available on the telegraph.co.uk web site
>you should be able to find it by using our search engine on telegraph.co.uk

It worked fro me just now. Do you splice together the URL correctly?



--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Alan Minyard]

On 9 Dec 2003 07:49:55 -0800, (jb) wrote:

>John Cook > wrote in message >...
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 13:18:35 -0600, Alan Minyard
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Actually, the eurofighter is already at least two generations behind the
>> >F-22/F-35. By the time the Chinese get one it will be 3-4 generations
>> >behind.
>>
>>
>> Hmmm... Typhoon at least two generations behind the F-22 and
>> F-35???????, Ok I'll bite.
>
>Al is right on this one. It will take 2 generations until the F22
>becomes operational. If they don't throw the entire project into the
>recycle bin, that is.

Get over it. Both the F-22 and F-35 are at least two generations ahead
of the typhoon. Both employ significant LO technology and advanced
avionics that Typhoon simply cannot match (or even come close to).

Al Minyard

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>John Cook > wrote in message
>...
>>> Hmmm... Typhoon at least two generations behind the F-22 and
>>> F-35???????, Ok I'll bite.

>Get over it. Both the F-22 and F-35 are at least two generations ahead
>of the typhoon.

Two generations back gets you the F-4 Phantom and the BAC Lightning...
I'd have thought that the Typhoon was at least some advance on the
1960s.

>Both employ significant LO technology and advanced
>avionics that Typhoon simply cannot match (or even come close to).

You might want to check the source of many of those avionics, and where
else they are used...

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:37:21 +0000, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, Alan Minyard
> writes
>>>John Cook > wrote in message
>...
>>>> Hmmm... Typhoon at least two generations behind the F-22 and
>>>> F-35???????, Ok I'll bite.
>
>>Get over it. Both the F-22 and F-35 are at least two generations ahead
>>of the typhoon.
>
>Two generations back gets you the F-4 Phantom and the BAC Lightning...
>I'd have thought that the Typhoon was at least some advance on the
>1960s.

Indeed. Al's bull****ting. I guess he's either stupid or trolling.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Ron]

>
>>Get over it. Both the F-22 and F-35 are at least two generations ahead
>>of the typhoon.
>
>Two generations back gets you the F-4 Phantom and the BAC Lightning...
>I'd have thought that the Typhoon was at least some advance on the
>1960s.

I was thinking it was more like half a generation....Since the F-22 would
probably fall under 5th, and Typhoon, Rafael, and even possibly Gripen, are 4.5
generation.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:37:21 +0000, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwly
>nch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>Two generations back gets you the F-4 Phantom and the BAC Lightning...
>>I'd have thought that the Typhoon was at least some advance on the
>>1960s.
>
>Indeed. Al's bull****ting. I guess he's either stupid or trolling.

I'll go for dogmatic and nationalistic. He's not a bad guy at all -
consistent and courteous, just very vehement in some of his opinions.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

[phil hunt]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 23:05:48 +0000, Paul J. Adam > wrote:
>In message >, phil hunt
> writes
>>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:37:21 +0000, Paul J. Adam <news@jrwly
>>nch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Two generations back gets you the F-4 Phantom and the BAC Lightning...
>>>I'd have thought that the Typhoon was at least some advance on the
>>>1960s.
>>
>>Indeed. Al's bull****ting. I guess he's either stupid or trolling.
>
>I'll go for dogmatic and nationalistic. He's not a bad guy at all -
>consistent and courteous, just very vehement in some of his opinions.

I'd agree. I think dogmatism is a from of self-inflicted stupidity;
basically one is negating the possiblity than one may be wrong. Of
course, everyone is wrong from time to time.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Mike]

"Alan Minyard" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 22:09:23 +0000, "Paul J. Adam"
> wrote:
>
> >In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
> >>Selling the most advanced aircraft that you are capable of building
> >>to obviously hostile, repressive regimes is not the act of a "friend"
> >
> >Al, you do realise that France is not part of the Eurofighter consortium
> >and so is only interested in selling Rafale? (Which story hasn't
> >appeared... yet).
> >
> >Now me, I'd be more worried about how military technology seems to go to
> >Israel and then appear in Beijing shortly thereafter, but that's just
> >me.
>
> I certainly agree with regards to Israel, we need to put a muzzle on that
hound.
> As for Rafale, it is a non-starter on the international market, but not
due to any
> qualms on the part of the French. It is simply a poor aircraft.


Bla bla bla Minyard!
You tell that because it is franch,and ONLY for that reason.
How can a "poor aircraft" win a technical competition aigainst the F.15E?

>
> Al Minyard

[Mike]

"Paul J. Adam" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> In message >, Alan Minyard
> > writes
> >Selling the most advanced aircraft that you are capable of building
> >to obviously hostile, repressive regimes is not the act of a "friend"
>
> Al, you do realise that France is not part of the Eurofighter consortium
> and so is only interested in selling Rafale? (Which story hasn't
> appeared... yet).

Hum,hum!...
Who builds the Typhoon?Isn't it EADS?
Which is....xx % french! (40 as far as I remember (?))

Of course,we are far more interested in selling Rafales that Typhoons.
But we're still concerned by the last one.

>
> Now me, I'd be more worried about how military technology seems to go to
> Israel and then appear in Beijing shortly thereafter, but that's just
> me.
>
> --
> When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
> W S Churchill
>
> Paul J. Adam MainBox<at>jrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk